You are on page 1of 1

26.9.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 299/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3. Protocol 3 cannot be interpreted in such a way that a
of 16 July 1998 deportation order made by the Jersey authorities
against a national of a Member State other than the
in Case C-171/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from United Kingdom would have the effect of prohibiting
the Royal Court of Jersey): Rui Alberto Pereira Roque v. that person's entry to and residence in the territory of
His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey (1) the United Kingdom for reasons and considerations
(Free movement of persons Ð Act of Accession of 1972 other than those for which the United Kingdom
Ð Protocol 3 concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle authorities might otherwise restrict the free movement
of Man Ð Jersey) of persons under Community law.
(98/C 299/11)
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
(Language of the case: English) (2) Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27.3.1972, p. 164.
(3) Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27.3.1972, p. 14.
In Case C-171/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Royal Court of Jersey for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Rui Alberto Pereira Roque and His
Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, on the
interpretation of Article 4 of Protocol 3 on the Channel JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Islands and the Isle of Man (2) annexed to the Act
(Fifth Chamber)
concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great of 16 July 1998
Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic
in Case C-210/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Community and to the European Atomic Energy
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Gut Springenheide GmbH,
Community and the adjustments to the Treaties (3) Ð the
Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt Ð
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung, Joined party:
C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Presidents
Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1)
of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. (Marketing standards for eggs Ð Promotional descriptions
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), or statements liable to mislead the purchaser Ð Reference
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, consumer)
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 July 1998,
(98/C 299/12)
in which it has ruled:

1. the rule on equal treatment set out in Article 4 of (Language of the case: German)
Protocol 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
annexed to the Act concerning the Conditions of (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and published in the European Court Reports)
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to the European Economic Community and to
the European Atomic Energy Community and the In Case C-210/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
adjustments to the Treaties does not have the effect of
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
prohibiting the deportation from Jersey of nationals of
a Member State other than the United Kingdom, even pending before that court between Gut Springenheide
GmbH, Rudolf Tusky and Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
though British citizens, including those who are not
Channel Islanders within the meaning of Article 6 of Steinfurt Ð Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung, Joined
Protocol 3, are not liable to be deported from Jersey; party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht,
on the interpretation of Article 10(2)(e) of Council
2. Article 4 of Protocol 3 is not to be interpreted as Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain
limiting the reasons for which a national of a Member marketing standards for eggs (2) Ð the Court (Fifth
State other than the United Kingdom may be deported Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
from Jersey to those justified on grounds of public Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
policy, public security or public health, laid down by D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
Article 48(3) of the EC Treaty and set out in detail by Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
on the coordination of special measures concerning the judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
movement and residence of foreign nationals which
are justified on grounds of public policy, public in order to determine whether a statement intended to
security or public health. Article 4 of Protocol 3 does, promote sales of eggs is liable to mislead the purchaser, in
however, prohibit the Jersey authorities from making a breach of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1907/
deportation order against a national of another 90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for
Member State by reason of conduct which, when eggs, the national court must take into account the
attributable to citizens of the United Kingdom, does presumed expectations which it evokes in an average
not give rise on the part of the Jersey authorities to consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably
repressive measures or other genuine and effective observant and circumspect. However, Community law
measures intended to combat such conduct; does not preclude the possibility that, where the national